We often talk about a left–right divide in politics. I suspect a similar divide exists within science—not in terms of scientists’ personal political views, but in how they approach ideas in their research.

On one side are the “left-leaning” types: open to new ideas, willing to question authority, yet still respectful of what already works. They tend to share methods freely and push for new ways of thinking.

On the other side are the “right-leaning” types: more cautious, closely aligned with established ideas, and preferring stability. They’re less comfortable with dissent and more inclined to follow authority.

Both groups are valuable. Most “ordinary” science—the careful work of refining theories and gathering data—comes from the conservative camp. Paradigm shifts and big breakthroughs more often come from the rebels.

Of course, there are extremes. The “radical left” in science can drift into crank territory—wild claims without enough evidence. The “radical right” can become entrenched critics who refuse to change their minds even as new evidence piles up, endlessly tweaking old theories to make them fit.

This “left vs. right” framing isn’t about politics in the usual sense. It’s about openness versus stability. A methodologically conservative scientist might be politically liberal, and vice versa.